Wes Anderson Explains Japanese Setting For 'Isle Of Dogs' Amid Controversy

Wes Anderson has found himself in a bit of controversy right before the release of his latest film, “Isle of Dogs.” The stop-motion animated film follows a young boy on a search for his missing dog on Trash Island, as he’s helped by an eclectic group of stray dogs along the way. Just the premise alone is enough to know that you’re about to watch another whimsical Wes Anderson film. However, nothing about that story required the film to be set in a specific country, but Anderson decided that fictionalized version of Japan served as the ideal backdrop for the film, nonetheless.

And that’s where the controversy lies. As reviews started coming out for the film, critics began raising the question of cultural appropriation in the film. Is Wes Anderson showcasing Japan in the best light? Was he using the film as a way to fetishize the country and culture? And does Anderson play into racial stereotypes?

While Anderson hasn’t come out and fully addressed the topic, as he’s notoriously media-shy, he did speak to Entertainment Weekly about the setting of the film. “The movie is a fantasy, and I would never suggest that this is an accurate depiction of any particular Japan,” Anderson says. “This is definitely a reimagining of Japan through my experience of Japanese cinema.”

This isn’t the first time that Anderson has come under fire for the way cultures are presented in his films. It’s been well-documented, even recently, that the protagonists (as well as most of the casts) of his films tend to be dominated by white men. That isn’t to say that the filmmaker is doing this with any ill-will or malice, but just the fact that as you watch his films, you notice that POCs are few and far between.

Also, the filmmaker tends to play a little fast and loose with the depictions of POCs in his films. There’s even a noted recent trend of cultural tourism by Anderson in films like “The Darjeeling Limited,” “The Grand Budapest Hotel,” and of course, “Isle of Dogs.” Is this enough to paint a picture of a problematic and tone-deaf filmmaker?

I have to admit, I have yet to see “Isle of Dogs.” Because of these criticisms, I’ll definitely be watching the film with a keen eye.

What do you think?